Accjc gone wild
Merced College – REMOVE WARNING AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)
Download 2.61 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- West Hills College District - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)
Merced College – REMOVE WARNING AND REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2013)At its June 5-7, 2013 meeting of the ACCJC the Commission removed Merced College from Warning and reaffirmed accreditation. The Commission noted in its July 3, 2013 letter to the college that “The human resources unit at Merced College now has a director and staff that has enabled it to develop a diversity plan and evaluate human resources' effectiveness at the College.” This is an example of how ACCJC sanctions force colleges to increase the administration and staff in order to receive accreditation. The increased administration and staff is not used to increase the number of classes offered but rather to develop plans and evaluate effectiveness in the human resources area. The changes at the college that were highlighted in the successful move from Warning to full accreditation were “that Merced College has revised its program review and integrated it with the planning process and has completed the Integrated Planning, Program Review, and Shared Governance Handbook, which all departments are expected to follow. Data is now pervasive in the decision-making process, and communication on campus has improved. The Board of Trustees receives training (especially for new Board members) and appears to understand its role.” The governing board now “understand s its role” based on the criteria of the Commission. No telling what the voters will do at the next election cycle. West Hills College District - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011)The two colleges in the West Hills College District had their accreditation reaffirmed in June 2011 with a requirement for college Follow-Up Reports to be submitted my March 15, 2012. The letters to the West Hills College Lemoore and West Hills College Coalinga both stated that “The Follow-Up Report should demonstrate that the institution has addressed the recommendations noted below. These recommendations have been worded by the Commission and replace the recommendations contained in the team report.” The Chancellor of the West Hills College District is ACCJC Commissioner Frank Gornick. Because of the secrecy of the Commission proceedings I have been unable to determine what role Dr. Gornick might have played in replacing the Visiting Team recommendations with those written by the Commission. The Visiting Team for the Coalinga campus had five faculty members on it. The Visiting Team for Lamoor had four faculty members on it. Perhaps that also influenced why the Commission did not use all of the recommendations from the Visiting team. I am not clear how the colleges of West Hills were able to get a full accreditation given the recommendations of the Commission and the Visiting Teams. West Hills College Lemoore - ACCREDITATION REAFFIRMED (2011) The West Hills College Lemoore had the following recommendations contained in the June 30, 2011 letter to the college: “Commission District Recommendation 1: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges to clearly delineate responsibility of each District service with relationship to corresponding College services. The Commission further recommends that each District service conduct a program review, which should include an outcomes-based assessment of its services. Commission District Recommendation 2: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges to develop evaluation procedures for online faculty and that evaluation results be incorporated in personnel evaluations for the purpose of improving online learning. Commission District Recommendation 3: To increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District and the colleges respectively document their facilities planning processes that address facilities' preventive maintenance and adequate maintenance staffing for all facilities, as well as an equipment replacement plan that addresses the total cost of ownership for all equipment, including technology equipment. [The Visiting Team Report stated this in terms of “To meet Standards.”] Commission District Recommendation 4: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District review its communication protocols and practices to assure ongoing, transparent, consistent, and timely communication among District participatory governance committees with corresponding College participatory committees. Commission District Recommendation 5: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District office ensure the District website contains all policies and update them as prescribed in its own policies. This will keep the colleges better informed of the current District policies and facilitate the implementation of the District policies at the colleges. [The Visiting Team Report stated this in terms of "To meet Standards."] Commission District Recommendation 6: The Commission recommends that the District and the colleges evaluate the district-wide distance education program to assure that the design, staffing, and operation of the program meet all elements of Accreditation Standards. This last recommendation was added by the Commission and was not contained in the Visiting Team report.
“College Recommendations for Standard II College Recommendation 1: Student Learning Outcomes In order to meet the Standards and to ensure that the Student Learning Outcomes Implementation Plan advances to the Proficiency stage by fall 2012, the team recommends that the college establish quality assurance measures in its revision and assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) at the course and program levels. The team further recommends that the College assess its SLO progress using the ACCJC rubric and establish ongoing authentic assessment that expands campus dialogue about teaching methods and tools that improve student learning. College Recommendation 2: Curriculum Review The team recommends that the college enforce its five-year course review policy for curriculum review processes and cycles so that all curricula across the college are reviewed consistently and regularly. College Recommendation 3: Program Elimination The team recommends that the college establish clear written policies and procedures regarding program elimination and significant changes to programs so that students can arrange to complete course requirements in a timely manner with a minimum of disruption. College Recommendation 4: Library and Learning Support Services The team recommends that the college allocate sufficient funds for library materials, resources, and services to support student learning. The college should ensure that the quantity, currency, depth, and variety of materials, resources, and services support educational offerings, regardless of location or means of delivery. College Recommendation 5: Physical Resources Recommendations The team recommends that the district and the college develop a Facilities Master Plan and staffing plan which address facilities maintenance, equipment replacement, technology, and total cost of ownership and ensure facilities and maintenance staffing is adequate to sustain existing and new facilities.” The Visiting Team also found that “The college does not fully meet all subsections of Standard II.A” and that the “college partially meets the requirements” of Standard II.B. The Visiting Team found that “The decision-making process at the college is clear and transparent; however, the process and criteria used by the district to make policy decisions that directly impact the instructional programs and services at the college are not clearly defined or communicated. There is also the perception by college faculty that the decision making structure is a top down directive by the district and that decisions, policy and practices are not clearly delineated or communicated.” Again, I am not sure how a college that has not met all of the standards as described above received a full accreditation. Could it have to do with the fact that a Commissioner is the Chancellor of the district? West Hills College Coalinga - REAFFIRM ACCREDITATION (2011) In addition to reaffirming accreditation, the Commission also found that “the Commission has determined that the recommendations made by the 2005 comprehensive evaluation team have been addressed and the deficiencies resolved by the College.” This pronouncement did not reflect the view of the Visiting Team. The Commission made the following college recommendations in its June 30, 2011 letter to the college: “1: To improve institutional effectiveness, the Commission recommends the College documents its existing system of integrated planning that clarifies the relationships between the results of program review, student learning outcomes evaluation, resource allocation, and the achievement of College goals and priorities. The Commission further recommends that the integrated planning also include systematic reviews of effectiveness to assure institutional improvement. In addition, the Commission recommends that the College specifically clarify roles, responsibilities, and priorities of College and District functions in the integration of planning. [instead of the word “documents” the Visiting Team used the phrase :”create an integrated planning system that formally articulates and documents the relationships”] 2: The Commission finds that the College made great strides in improving its governance process by revamping a former process based on constituents' feedback and initiating new councils to provide greater participation in the governance process to faculty, staff, and students. In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the new process be evaluated and that attendance be more transparent by recording attendees and absentees to ensure full participation of faculty, staff, and students as appropriate.”
3: In order to meet Standards, the team recommends that the college develop a Facilities Master Plan. In order to promote sustainability of its physical resources, the team further recommends that the college clearly identify the total cost of ownership.” The Commission included the following District Recommendation “1: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges to clearly delineate responsibility of each District service with relationship to corresponding College services. The Commission further recommends that each District service conduct a program review, which should include an outcomes-based assessment of its services. 2: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges to develop evaluation procedures for online faculty and that evaluation results be incorporated in personnel evaluations for the purpose of improving online learning. 3: To increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District and the colleges respectively document their facilities planning processes that address facilities' preventive maintenance and adequate maintenance staffing for all facilities, as well as an equipment replacement plan that addresses the total cost of ownership for all equipment, including technology equipment. [The Visiting Team said it was “to meet the Standards”] 4: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District review its communication protocols and practices to assure ongoing, transparent, consistent, and timely communication among District participatory governance committees with corresponding College participatory committees. 5: In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District office ensure the District website contains all policies and update them as prescribed in its own policies. This will keep the colleges better informed of the current District policies and facilitate the implementation of the District policies at the colleges.” [The Visiting Team said it was "to meet the Standards"] The Commission added their own recommendation that: “6: The Commission recommends that the District and the colleges evaluate the district-wide distance education program to assure that the design, staffing, and operation of the program meet all elements of Accreditation Standards.” The Visiting Team had a number of other recommendations not included by the Commission. They included: “6: In order to fully meet Recommendation 5.1 from 2005, the team recommends that the District clarify and delineate, in both policy and practice, the roles and responsibilities of the chancellor and the college president in decision-making which directly affects college operations. The team further recommends the District fully explains the relationship between the District and the college as it relates to authority to operate. 7: To meet Recommendation 5.3 from 2005, the team recommends the District develop and implement a clearly communicated process for regularly reviewing the appropriateness of the assignment of various functions and staff to the district office or to the college campuses. 8: To meet Recommendation 5.5 from 2005 and be fully in compliance with this Standard, the team recommends that the district regularly evaluate the district strategic planning process. 9: To be in full compliance with the standards, the team recommends that a more elaborate answer with evidence be provided; that acknowledges the efforts the district staff and the college are making to keep everyone informed on many issues. The team further recommends that the District clearly stipulate how the Board of Trustees adheres to the conflict of interest policy.
“In order to increase effectiveness, the Commission recommends that the District work with the colleges to clearly delineate responsibility of each District service with relationship to corresponding College services. The Commission further recommends that each District service conduct a program review, which should include an outcomes-based assessment of its services.” Oddly enough, given that the Commission wrote the recommendations and not the Visiting Team, the March 15, 2004 Midterm Report stated that the college should “provide evidence of resolution or implementation for each recommendation made be the last comprehensive evaluation team.” Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 2.61 Mb. Share with your friends:
|